ArticleJournal of orthopaedic translation2019
Incidence of a stem sitting proud of a proximally coated cementless tapered wedge stem.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic translation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Properly designed femoral stem impactors help to avoid overstuffing and make a second trial reduction unnecessary.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Trial
- Chronic abductor lesion after total hip arthroplasty in a sitting proud stem: direct repair by osteotomy of the greater trochanter.BMJ case reports · 2023Article
- A novel design, analysis and 3D printing of Ti-6Al-4V alloy bio-inspired porous femoral stem.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveA stem sitting proud (SP) or that above the final rasp position remains in some patients who undergo hip replacement using proximally coated tapered wedge stems. Surgeons may face challenges providing the best fit because of unpredictable SP of proximally coated tapered wedge stems. Zimmer Inc. introduced a new rasp to solve this issue but the clinical results of this rasp have not yet been published. Therefore, our aim was to address the following: (1) What is the stem SP incidence using a proximally coated cementless tapered wedge stem? (2) Does the new rasp system (0-mm rasp) improve seating height? and (3) What are the risk factors of stem SP?
methodsWe performed a retrospective study with 338 hips, in which Tri-Lock Bone Preservation Stem (BPS) was used in 181 hips and M/L Taper stem was used in 157 hips (82 hips before and 75 hips after 0-mm rasp use). A positive stem SP was defined as a stem proud height of >2 mm. We analysed and compared SP incidence in two stems and M/L Taper stems before and after the 0-mm rasp use.
resultsAn incidence of stem SP was 13% in the Tri-Lock BPS and 15% in the M/L Taper stem before the 0-mm rasp use. Stem SP incidence in the M/L Taper stem substantially decreased after the 0-mm rasp use (4%). The significant risk factor for stem SP was use of the high offset option in Tri-Lock BPS.
conclusionThe proximally coated tapered wedge stems present potential problems related to stem SP. The new rasp of the M/L Taper stem showed significant improvement in initial seating height. THE TRANSLATIONAL POTENTIAL OF THIS ARTICLE: This study was conducted to understand "stem sitting proud" in proximally coated tapered wedge stem as one of the most popular designs nowadays in adult hip joint arthroplasty field. In this study, we aimed to address the incidence of stem proud, investigated the risk factor and introduced the effect of new rasp system which improve stem seating height.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.